Are we ready for legal marijuana?

LOST IN THE excitement of the presidential race on Nov. 6 were ballot initiatives in Colorado and Washington asking voters whether the use of marijuana for recreational purposes should be permitted, despite the fact that it's illegal under federal law.

In the run up to Election Day there had been a great deal of campaigning for and against, but when the votes were counted the referendums were found to be approved in each state.

That gives their legislatures authority to go ahead and draft laws establishing how and where pot can be sold, who can buy and use it, how much of a stash they can have on their persons, in their cars or at home at any given moment, and any other restrictions that might be deemed appropriate.

Of course nothing they do will carry much weight given the federal prohibition but the votes represent a foot in the door.

Clifton already has a horse in the marijuana race, since our next door neighbor, Montclair has become the first New Jersey town where it can be sold on prescription for medicinal purposes under state law, even though it is in violation of federal statutes.

That is a concept fraught with peril, but obviously many people believe marijuana use is a practice whose time has come, again, and not just in the USA.

THE GOVERNMENT of Uruguay, a very nice little country across the estuary from Argentina with a population of about 2.5 million highly civilized people and 15 million sheep, received a law last week in the lower house of its congress, backed by President Jose Mujica, seeking to legalize marijuana use. Passage is seen as a shoo in.

But it will be just a first step, because it is a very big step, and those highly civilized people want to make sure they get it right. If Colorado and Washington press ahead with their initiatives, obviously they will be able to learn valuable lessons from south of the border.

Being a primarily agrarian country, Uruguayans anticipate that a majority of users will want to grown their own, so how many plants should a citizen user cultivate? So far, the limit is set at six. That calls for a license and some form of inspection protocol to make sure the limit is observed.

If they don't want to grow their own, it is proposed they be allowed to buy 1.4 ounces a month, which again, will require a regulatory system to ensure they don't buy more.

Then there is the age of the user and the place they can smoke their joints, because second hand smoke in this case can be a serious problem.

Having visited Uruguay – which looks surprisingly like New Jersey – I know its people to be very sociable, so the creation of marijuana clubs is included in the basic concept. It is proposed they have no more than 15 members, that they be allowed to grow 90 plants, and produce no more than 16 pounds of smokeable pot a year. Now aren't those inspectors going to be busy? Clubs will not be allowed to sell any unsmoked inventory and not permitted to advertise themselves. As longtime pot smokers know, quality and impact can vary, but a club must keep its quality to itself.

The usual restrictions on driving cars, flying airplanes and operating boats or heavy equipment while under the influence would apply. Somewhere in all of this fees would be a source of revenue.

NOW, BACK TO medical use of marijuana per the shop in adjacent Montclair.

If doctors' prescriptions are required, what will be the source of their guidance? If they write a prescription for a mainstream medication, they have the PDR (Physician's Desk Reference) as a guide, and if they have been in practice for a while, they have the experience of various medications on previous patients. Sometimes the PDR will have page after page of side effects and counter indications for a given medication, and if you are using medicine and take the time to read the information sheet that came with it, you will see the warnings are many. From whence will come the warnings on marijuana?

Forty years ago a reader gave me a copy of the Dispensatory of The United States of America dated 1856, that era's version of the PDR, with explanations and cautions for everything a pharmacist could prepare (almost nothing was prepackaged) and a doctor prescribe. Marijuana was an accepted medicine, known as cannabis, and was listed for use in a large variety of ailments, though glaucoma is not included. There are 4-1/2 pages of explanations, side effects and counter indications in that book.

It does not prescribe smoking for any of those treatments. It tells the druggist how to distill the elements from hemp leaves, create drops to be administered for many diseases, or continue processing until he separates the gummy emission from the leaves, which can be administered as pellets or turned in to crystalline powder for other uses.

Does this knowledge detract from the commitment of many to marijuana for medicinal purposes? As California discovered, a disheartening number of clients in that state's stores wanted only a smokeable form of the drug.